, 1887-12-01


been simply OF preliminary charac-
ter, but few cases will be tried TINS
week. The Uni.ed States attorney is
expected to arrive shortly, and as his
cases take precedence, probably very
few others will be tried till the middle
of next week, when 1t is expected that
work on the criminal docket will begin.
Definite dates Of trial set thus far are
as follows:
Friday, Nov. 25. c. M. Ellars vs.
w. Is. Ramsey Francis IL. Cook VS..
p. jenkins; Geo. f. Schorr w. l..
NJ. Kellogg.
Monday, Nov. %. G. C. Lamb ct
al. VS.. L. +. Whittier; Jas. n. Glover
VS.. II. G. Grifiitts.
Tuesday, Nov. 80. Catherine Scott
VS. City of Spokane Falls.
Wednesday, Nov. 40 Carter Bros
VS. Spokane Electric Light and Power
company; III, T.. Windsor VS. w, X.
Windsor.
Friday, Dec. Is. Wm Glassford VS.
II. NJ. Mccartney, ct al.
Saturday, Dec. II. Esther Boorman
W II. A. Wilson. ct al.
Monday, Dec. 10, w. \. Fenton vs.
j. ID. Sherwood, ct al.
Tuesday, Dec. 20. j. NJ. Major vs.
j. +. Walters.
Wednesday, Dec. 81. Daniel Meyer
VS. Schecline Bros; Levy Bros. vs.
Scheclnc Boos. Both Il Co. vs. Schce-
line Bros. Samuel Sachs IS Scheelnc
Bros.
The court convened at &c o'clock Fri.
day morning, and at once proceeded to
business. The following names were re.
turned to complete the petit jury: John
Meyer, d. c. Farnsworth, W. H. Spencer,
]. Il. Laughn, John McCabe, W. II. Brown,
T.. b. Poore, B. ID. Brockman, A. c. Satt-
man, w. S. Walker and J. B. Justice.
A jury was empaneled to try the case of
| Ellars vs.. Ramsey & Cook, a suit for the
| collection of note of Sl0i with interest.
| The facts OF the case were as follows: Some
| time ago the plaintiff Ellars accepted II
| note from the defendants tor $l0i, with the
understanding that IL was to be paid in
pottery ware manufactured by them. The
ware was prepared and set aside, but Ellars
refused to take it, claiming that portion
of it was defective and not merchantable,
and demanding money payment instead
| This was refused, and the matter was
| brought into the courts
Prather appeared for the plaintiff and
| Graves for the defendants. number Of
| witnesses We're brought forward on both
| sides The defense proved by two of the
| leading merchants Of the city that the ware
was merchantable, and also brought for
! ward an expert in the pottery bus ness, who
! had u lively discussion with lawyer Prather
in regard To the fine points of the trade.
| The plaintiff also produced men who claim
| ed to be experts who swore that the ware
was defective. Both lawyers spoke briefly
| in summing up the case, and, after receiv-
| ing instructions from the judge, the jury
| retired, and after short conference brought
| in u verdict for the defendants.
Meanwhile the grand jury reported that
they had found true indictments in the fol-
lowing cases: Against Joseph Ward for
murder in the first degree Nancy o Brien
| for assault with intent to kill; BRAZIL and
James Williams for robbery. The counsel
| OF all these prisoners asked for day 8
grace before announcing the plea which
their clients would enter.
| w. II. White, United States attorney, ar
| rived during the morning, and asked to
! have the grand jury Of the territory sworn
in as the grand jury of the United States,
which was done, as all the members were
qualified To serve.
The case of +. H. Cook against d. p
| jenkins was then called. This was a suit
to recover damages for the removal of &
| fence and water pipe. Nickel appeared foi
AT II late hour the case was unfinished.